The topic that is being debated is weather internet access should be regulated by the government to provide cheaper service to the less fortunate. Susan Crawford, an opinion writer for the NY Times, argues that the government should invest in fiber optics like Sweden did, in her article called "Government Should invest in Fiber Optics" on the 14th of July, 2014. Her primary evidence is that internet is such a big part of the civilization today that it should not be denied to those who cant afford it. She develops her argument primarily by using logic and providing facts, then provide a way for the government to intervene and in turn actually make money. Her purpose is to bring about a change to the industry in order to voice the opinions of those who don't have power, and allow them access to internet. The intended audience is internet companies, and government officials. This article is impressive in its way of constructing the argument. Percentages, and data is given to make it credible such as ""available" to 97 percent", which is far stretched. She also gives examples on how to fix he problem, such as Sweden did. The author even gives an incentive as she explains that governments actually collect money at the end of the month. This article is lacking emotions, to create a stronger persuasion. On the same topic Larry Downes takes a different side. He certifies in his article "Keep Out Government and Internet Service Will Improve" on July 14th, 2014, that government intervention in internet companies will certainly hinder Americans than help. He supports his argument by providing statistics, then using logical reasons why government intervention is a terrible idea, by giving examples of other continents such as Europe. His primary evidence is the fact that other countries trying to regulate the market has led to disasters, and that the reason why the few percent of people in the nation doesn't have internet is perceived irrelevance than cost. The writer's purpose is to discourage the government to unite internet infrastructures in order to leave the nation to run as smoothly as it is now. The intended audience is the Congress, and also people who support government intervention. His language is very factual to make his argument unbreakable, while his tone is condescending. This article is outstanding in his persuasive arguments using facts, statistics, and comparisons with other countries. His article use a more equal argument from the other side of the issue.
Although I do not agree with Downes his article is better written in my opinion. His language, tone, and argument is organized in a manner that is more appealing than Crawford's. Downes does also support the other side of the argument although now well when he said "we still have families who want Internet access but simply can’t afford it" and then providing that Federal Communications Commission is already devising a way to make it possible. He also says that cost is not the primary reason for limited access but desire is. He even provides example of other countries with government controlled infrastructure, and the failure of this. He even says that the government controlled infrastructure we have now is not improving, while the internet has made leaps towards the future. This really opens my eyes because he points out the simple truth that other countries have tried but failed. Inevitably, America will face the same destiny. Crawford also provides exampled from other countries but she also says that it will be a denomination to Verizon in NY.
In my opinion I believe that the government should invest in providing internet service for all, or at least wet their industrial feet into the issue. Crawford asserts that Federal government should invest in fiber optics, while Downes says that intervention is a mistake. Crawford brings in the issue of students who need the internet in daily life for federal schools. In daily experience I have seen that many students who do not have internet at home find it difficult or impossible to complete assignments on time. Although libraries are available, due to the busy schedule of many students, timing does not work out. In discussions of usage, one controversial issue has been cost. On one hand, Downes argues that the few Americans without internet access is due to the fact they simply do not want it. Crawford argues that cost is the first issue. My view is that cost is the major issue, which can be seen through the students who desperately seek internet but are turned away due to insufficient funds. My opinion is that the government should't completely take over the industry but seek to help those students and families who truly can't afford it.
Although I do not agree with Downes his article is better written in my opinion. His language, tone, and argument is organized in a manner that is more appealing than Crawford's. Downes does also support the other side of the argument although now well when he said "we still have families who want Internet access but simply can’t afford it" and then providing that Federal Communications Commission is already devising a way to make it possible. He also says that cost is not the primary reason for limited access but desire is. He even provides example of other countries with government controlled infrastructure, and the failure of this. He even says that the government controlled infrastructure we have now is not improving, while the internet has made leaps towards the future. This really opens my eyes because he points out the simple truth that other countries have tried but failed. Inevitably, America will face the same destiny. Crawford also provides exampled from other countries but she also says that it will be a denomination to Verizon in NY.
In my opinion I believe that the government should invest in providing internet service for all, or at least wet their industrial feet into the issue. Crawford asserts that Federal government should invest in fiber optics, while Downes says that intervention is a mistake. Crawford brings in the issue of students who need the internet in daily life for federal schools. In daily experience I have seen that many students who do not have internet at home find it difficult or impossible to complete assignments on time. Although libraries are available, due to the busy schedule of many students, timing does not work out. In discussions of usage, one controversial issue has been cost. On one hand, Downes argues that the few Americans without internet access is due to the fact they simply do not want it. Crawford argues that cost is the first issue. My view is that cost is the major issue, which can be seen through the students who desperately seek internet but are turned away due to insufficient funds. My opinion is that the government should't completely take over the industry but seek to help those students and families who truly can't afford it.